Court Rules Spirit Transported by Tanker Not Necessarily Hazardous Goods Under CMV Rules; Insurance Company Liable to Pay Rs.19.04 Lakh Compensation
In a significant judgment dated September 23, 2026, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow, affirming the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.19,04,000 compensation along with 7% interest to the legal heirs of the deceased motorcyclist, Mahendra Kumar. The accident had occurred on March 27, 2015, near Kamta Market, District Sultanpur, when a tanker driven rashly collided with the motorcycle, causing the immediate death of Mahendra Kumar and serious injuries to the pillion rider.
The insurer challenged the Tribunal's decision primarily on the ground that the tanker was carrying spirit, allegedly a hazardous substance, and that the driver lacked the mandatory endorsement on his heavy goods vehicle driving licence authorizing him to transport hazardous goods as required under Rule 9(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The insurer contended that this breach of policy conditions should absolve it from liability.
Justice Prashant Kumar, presiding over the Lucknow bench, after a detailed examination of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Table III listing hazardous goods, held that not every spirit or ethanol is classified as hazardous. The judgment emphasized that the Table specifically enumerates certain categories of ethanol (Serial Nos. 851 to 853) as hazardous, but mere transport of "spirit," without evidence that it falls under these categories, does not amount to carrying hazardous goods. The court noted that the Regional Transport Officer had confirmed that the driver's licence was valid for driving a heavy goods vehicle, though lacking the hazardous goods endorsement, but there was no concrete evidence that the spirit carried matched the hazardous categories.
The Court thus upheld the Tribunal's findings that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker's driver, and there was no contributory negligence by the deceased. Consequently, the insurer remained liable to satisfy the compensation awarded.
This ruling clarifies the interpretation of hazardous goods under the CMV Rules, and affirms that insurers cannot evade liability solely on the absence of hazardous goods endorsement unless the transported substance is clearly identified as hazardous under the prescribed categories. The judgment also underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring just compensation for victims of motor accidents.
Bottom Line:
Motor Vehicles Act - Insurer cannot avoid liability merely on the plea that tanker was carrying spirit and driver lacked hazardous goods endorsement - In absence of evidence that substance transported fell within hazardous goods specified in Table III of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, valid heavy goods vehicle licence is sufficient and no breach of policy conditions is proved.
Statutory provision(s):
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Rule 9(3), Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Table III
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Reena Devi, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990444
